M. C. JAIN, ACTING C. J. - (1.) THESE appeals are directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 11. 2. 1986 whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions and quashed the orders issued by the Colonisation Tehsildars and the proceedings taken by them under s. 22 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).
(2.) IT may be mentioned that by notification dated 30. 5. 1978 published in Rajasthan Rajpatra Part IV C (II) dated 8. 6. 1978, the powers of the Collector were conferred on the Colonisation Tehsildars. That notification reads as under: "in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Section 2 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 (Rajasthan Act No. XXVII of 1954), the State Government hereby appoints all Colonisation Tehisldars of the State to perform such functions and to exercise such powers of Collector under s. 22 of this Act in the village specified as 'colony' from time to time under this Act and are falling in their respective jurisdiction. " By virtue of the aforesaid notification, the Colonisation Tehsildars initiated proceedings under s. 22 of the Act and passed orders for eviction and other orders, which were challenged in the aforesaid writ petitions inter-alia, on the ground that the aforesaid notification does not define functions and powers of the Collector, which have been conferred on the Colonisation Tehsildars and the notification is vague and ambiguous and, therefore, the Colonisation Tehsildars cannot exercise any powers under s. 22 of the Act. This contention of the petitioners has been upheld by the learned single Judge and the learned single Judge proceeded to consider the contention that the expression 'to perform such functions and to exercise such powers of the Collector under s. 22 of this Act' cannot be interpreted to mean 'to perform all functions and to exercise all powers of the Collector under s. 22 of the Act. ' IT was contended before the learned single Judge that the notification is an incomplete document and the Colonisation Tehsildars do not derive any power or authority by virtue of this notification to perform or exercise any function or power of the Collector under s. 22 of the Act. This contention was accepted by the learned single Judge and it was observed by him that the notification dated 30. 5. 1978 does not authorise the Colonisation Tehsildars to perform or exercise all functions and powers of the Collector under s. 22 of the Act. The word 'such' used twice in the notification to qualify the words 'function' and 'power' is neither a superfluous expression nor it is synonymous with the word 'all'. The word 'such' as an adjective is used for something that has been stated earlier or which is to be specified or exemplified in the portion which is to follow. IT has been further observed by the learned single Judge that the words 'such' means 'of that kind', 'the like kind' or the 'same kind'. The word 'such' is used to avoid repetition of the expression already indicated, described or specified or it denotes the context which is about to be indicated, suggested or exemplified. The learned Judge further observed that in the context of s. 22 of the Act, it is not possible to construe the expression, to perform such functions and to exercise such powers of the Collector under s. 22 of this Act' to mean to perform all functions and to exercise all powers of the Collector under s. 22 of the Act. The learned Judge also observed that the word 'such' cannot be treated as redundant and he concluded that he has no alternative but to hold that the Colonisation Tehsildars have no jurisdiction or competence to perform or exercise the functions and powers of the Collector under s. 22 of the Act. On behalf of the State of Rajasthan, Mr. Rajendra Vyas, the learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the intention behind the notification is to confer all powers on the Colonisation Tehsildars which are possessed by the Collector under s. 22 of the Act and so, the word 'such' should be construed to mean the powers possessed by the Collector under s. 22 of the Act. There is a reference of s, 22 in the notification regarding powers of the Collector and so, those very powers have been conferred on the Colonisation & Tehsildars. In the above submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate, we do not find much substance. As construed by the learned single Judge, the word 'such' occuring in the impugned notification cannot be so construed. Functions and powers have to be specified and the word 'such' can relate to those functions and powers. In the absence of specification of functions and powers, the word 'such' would be meaningless, as the word 'such' cannot be precisely said to be used for any specific powers. To our mind, the notification does not convey what might have been intended. We cannot enter into the question as to what was the intendment behind the issuance of notification under s. 2 (l) (a) of the Act. Although several functions and powers are vested in the Collector under s. 22 of the Act. It may be that the Authority issuing the notification may be contemplating not to confer all powers and to perform all functions but to confer limited powers and limited functions possessed by the Collector under s. 22 of the Act. The Court is required to construe the notification as it exists and it cannot substitute any words for the words which have been used by the Authority issuing the notification. In the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, IIIrd Edition, the meaning of the word 'such' has been given as under: "such: of the same kind or class as something mentioned or referred to; of that kind; similar, the like; previously -described or specified; the person or thing before mentioned; the thing mentioned or referred to. " Division Bench of this Court has an occasion to consider the meaning of the word 'such' in Union of India V. Wazir Singh (1), where in it has been observed that generally the word 'such' refers only to previously indicated, characterized or specified. 'such' is an adjective meaning the one previously indicated or refers only to something which has been said before. It is true that there is a reference of s. 22 in the notification with regard to the powers of the' Collector under s. 22 of the Act but from the language which has been used in the notification, it cannot be taken that the Colonisation Tehsildars are required to perform such functions and to exercise such powers as are possessed by the Collector under s. 22 of the Act. Thus, there is no specification of powers which are provided under s. 22 of the Act. In the absence of such specification, no powers can be exercised by the Colonisation Tehsildars as from the word 'such' no powers flow. It is only when the powers were specified, those powers could have been exercised and those functions could have been performed. In view of the above discussion, the learned single Judge was right and justified in allowing the writ petitions and to hold that the Colonisation Tehsildars have no jurisdiction or competence to perform the functions and exercise the powers of the Collector under s. 22 of the Act. The impugned notification is incomplete and laconic and on the basis of such an incomplete and laconic notification, powers cannot be exercised by the Colonisation Tehsildars.
(3.) IN the result, these appeals have no force, so they are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. .;